6 yr old with sleep apnea arrested

[jimbud]

As a law enforcement officer, I'm inclined to respond to this.

As officers of the law, we have a high degree of discretion when performing our duties. We have choices. We can give tickets, or not. We can stop that car, or not. We can arrest someone when we have probable cause to believe that a felony was committed, or a misdemeanor was committed in our presence, or we can issue a summons. Or, we can seek an arrest warrant at a later time. We have plenty of options.

With that said, I don't like Monday morning quarterbacking, because I wasn't there. BUT...

This was a bad call on the officer's part, as far as I can tell. The "sleep apnea" angle seems to be a way of somehow justifying the action. There have been times in the past, maybe 15 years ago, when at the behest of a parent, I scolded a young kid for something they had done, but not a 6 year old. Maybe 10, or 12. There's alot going on here to unpack. Maybe the child(ren) have some other issue that causes them to act out. Maybe they have a crazy home life. Maybe there is abuse. Maybe there are alot of things, but then again...

...maybe that officer just didn't use good discretion.

And maybe I'm wrong. Just the thoughts of one man. I can not think of a single situation in which I would arrest a six year old child as I would an adult, place them in handcuffs, and put them into a caged vehicle. Why would I? A court would never waive a six year into adult court, even if that six year old just got done mowing down 50 people with a super death machine aircraft carrier mounted machine gun. They are simply not capable of formulating the thought processes to understand, therefore, they cannot be treated as adults. These are the kinds of actions that make the public question the need for police at all. In the end, it just makes my job harder.

Edit: The officer has been fired. I don't know if it was because he broke policy, or because the media heat was just too high and a head had to roll.

1. Yes. At the very least Yes.

2. Nothing justifies this sort of action.

3. A bit of an understatement.

4. How about "It is the right thing to do".

[palerider]

I'll just leave this here:

https://boingboing.net/2019/09/23/polic ... 6-yea.html

[Lucyhere]

My sister lives in Florida. This definitely is NOT a hoax. At this moment (which of course is hush, hush) there is a possibility of a discrimination law suit. That's as much information that I have.

[Grace~~~]

Clearly the SLEEP APNEA connection is a mere footnote to this story, but I can't help but wonder about it.

I've seen very few threads / posts here on CPAPTALK about pediatric apnea and those have mostly been about finding masks that fit a child's head.

I wonder if the idea of a child acting out violently caused by untreated sleep apnea is even valid?

I know that's not the primary issue in this story, but it would be nice to bring awareness of sleep apnea in to light. Maybe a great CPAP doctor will see the story and become interested? A silver lining would be if the story could help other children.

So often children are drugged with behavioral disorders and I think X-pap would be far safer than pills. I wish the grandmother would talk more about that aspect. I wonder if she herself uses CPAP and if she possibly "self diagnosed" the 6 year old?

It would even be interesting to learn of the arresting police offers therapy.
(or at least interesting to some of us here on cpaptalk)

It's a tragic story all the way around.
Abuse of power by authorities and police is always a stab right in the heart.

[ChicagoGranny]

So often children are drugged with behavioral disorders and I think X-pap would be far safer than pills.

----------------->

OSA may contribute to ADHD symptomatology in a subset of patients diagnosed with ADHD (DSM-IV criteria). Treatment of OSA appears to have favorable effects on ADHD symptoms. Controlled trials and epidemiologic investigations will be required to better understand these relationships, as well as their diagnostic and prognostic implications.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21808754

[JayDee]

As a former Florida LEO patrol supv -- I can sort of imagine a situation where the school staff threw up their hands and said they couldn't (or didn't want to) deal with the child and then tossed the "hot potato" to the SRO to deal with. Even if that were true, I would like to hear a *darned* good reason why this (presumably trained) SRO could not control an unarmed 6 yr old girl without resorting to an arrest. He had a range of options. Among the glaringly obvious (per the training he presumably received), if she would not listen to his efforts to calm & de-escalate the situation and continued her tantrum, he along with one or more school staffers (two-person control) could shepherd the "out of control" student somewhere the disturbance could be minimized (play ground, vacant classroom, lunchroom, gym, etc) and let her vent until she cooled down and regained control of her emotions. Bearing in mind, he's dealing with a 6-yr old kid with a (relatively speaking) short attention span and not an 18yr old high-school gang member who may pose a physical threat.

Granted, we don't have all the details. But even if the girl was frantic, hitting, kicking, scratching, cussing the SRO and staff, I still have concerns he was unable to physically manage a 6-yr old kid reasonably. That tends to cast some doubts about this officer's skills (both soft & hard) and his temperament for a position as an SRO. And since he has been fired, it would appear his agency may have had similar concerns.

Opinions may vary.
-JD

[Midwest_non_sleeper]

As a law enforcement officer, I'm inclined to respond to this.

As officers of the law, we have a high degree of discretion when performing our duties. We have choices. We can give tickets, or not. We can stop that car, or not. We can arrest someone when we have probable cause to believe that a felony was committed, or a misdemeanor was committed in our presence, or we can issue a summons. Or, we can seek an arrest warrant at a later time. We have plenty of options.

With that said, I don't like Monday morning quarterbacking, because I wasn't there. BUT...

This was a bad call on the officer's part, as far as I can tell. The "sleep apnea" angle seems to be a way of somehow justifying the action. There have been times in the past, maybe 15 years ago, when at the behest of a parent, I scolded a young kid for something they had done, but not a 6 year old. Maybe 10, or 12. There's alot going on here to unpack. Maybe the child(ren) have some other issue that causes them to act out. Maybe they have a crazy home life. Maybe there is abuse. Maybe there are alot of things, but then again...

...maybe that officer just didn't use good discretion.

And maybe I'm wrong. Just the thoughts of one man. I can not think of a single situation in which I would arrest a six year old child as I would an adult, place them in handcuffs, and put them into a caged vehicle. Why would I? A court would never waive a six year into adult court, even if that six year old just got done mowing down 50 people with a super death machine aircraft carrier mounted machine gun. They are simply not capable of formulating the thought processes to understand, therefore, they cannot be treated as adults. These are the kinds of actions that make the public question the need for police at all. In the end, it just makes my job harder.

Edit: The officer has been fired. I don't know if it was because he broke policy, or because the media heat was just too high and a head had to roll.

1. Yes. At the very least Yes.

2. Nothing justifies this sort of action.

3. A bit of an understatement.

4. How about "It is the right thing to do".

1: Correct.

2: I prefer to say that "Not much" justifies that sort of action. Remember, it's a crazy world, and crazy things happen - crazy things that aren't always wrong.

3: Understatement is still a true statement.

4: Because even though "it's the right thing to do", the agency still has a cite a reason for the dismissal. I know in people's heads, they like to think that firing someone is as easy as 1, 2, 3, but in the real world, you have to have a good reason for it - even if it's a made up reason, because otherwise you may find a Union at your throat with the power of previous court decisions behind them (largely for public sector, private sector is much easier to let someone go). Yes, it was the right thing to do in this instance, clearly, but I'm guessing that in their official statement, it's going to say something about "...did not follow Departmental Policy..." in lieu of "...it was the right thing to do...".

[jimbud]

1: Correct.

2: I prefer to say that "Not much" justifies that sort of action. Remember, it's a crazy world, and crazy things happen - crazy things that aren't always wrong.

3: Understatement is still a true statement.

4: Because even though "it's the right thing to do", the agency still has a cite a reason for the dismissal. I know in people's heads, they like to think that firing someone is as easy as 1, 2, 3, but in the real world, you have to have a good reason for it - even if it's a made up reason, because otherwise you may find a Union at your throat with the power of previous court decisions behind them (largely for public sector, private sector is much easier to let someone go). Yes, it was the right thing to do in this instance, clearly, but I'm guessing that in their official statement, it's going to say something about "...did not follow Departmental Policy..." in lieu of "...it was the right thing to do...".

jimbud writes:

First I wish to say I believe you are a credit to your profession. On here you have presented yourself as a person i would have no problem with in any setting. You are "A Man".

I also think:

There is a mindset in Law Enforcement to "Circle the Wagons" when an incident such as this occurs.
It is in the air you breath every day. You are under a spotlight always. All the good you do is taken for granted.
When anyone considered to be "Law Enforcement" screws up it hits every news outlet in the land. Politicians try to use it to their advantage. And so on.

My point was and is the tendency to use words that down play these incidents. That's all.
It just struck me as too mild.

Anyway I do understand. I worked for many years for a Major Oil Company.
The only way they could get rid of "Deadwood" was to sell properties and have layoffs.

JPB

I am still trying to figure out how to format/compose on here.

[ChicagoGranny]

I am still trying to figure out how to format/compose on here.

How To Partial Quote
- Click "Post Reply" button on lower left

- Scroll down to the comment you wish to quote

- Highlight the portion you wish to quote

- In the box you are quoting, click on the Quotation marks in the upper right corner of that box

- Scroll back up to your comment box

- The section you are quoting now appears there

- Place your comment below that section

- If you want to quote another section, follow the same procedure

- This may be done multiple times in one Reply box

- Note that the section being quoted will be inserted where you last left the cursor in your Comment box

Clear as mud? Practice.

[Goofproof]

I think more than likely, Sleep Apnea isn't the problem. More than likely it's a hearing problem, the child isn't hearing "NO!", at home, The parents?, probably spell it long enough use it, that goes for Grandparents also.

Children need to be taught the meaning of "NO", and have results for not reacting to "NO" applied! For me it was a switch from the Maple Tree in the front yard, I wasn't dumb, I never needed a second lesson for the same thing, I was like most kids and always found new things to test the boundaries.

I came back home from the service, a man of 22, first time I noticed the tree was dead and gone, it gave up it's Life, so I could grow up Strong and Tall. I wasn't a abused child, thanks to being correctly trained by my parents. Jim

[jimbud]

I am still trying to figure out how to format/compose on here.

- Click "Post Reply" button on lower left

- Scroll down to the comment you wish to quote

- Highlight the portion you wish to quote

- In the box you are quoting, click on the Quotation marks in the upper right corner of that box

- Scroll back up to your comment box

- The section you are quoting now appears there

- Place your comment below that section

- If you want to quote another section, follow the same procedure

- This may be done multiple times

- Note that the section being quoted will be inserted where you last left the cursor in your Comment box

Clear as mud? Practice.

Thank you.
I have saved your lesson to my cpap links/lesson plan.
I will practice like a fiend until I perfect my technique.

Your humble, grateful and dutiful pupil,
JPB

[jimbud]

I think more than likely, Sleep Apnea isn't the problem. More than likely it's a hearing problem, the child isn't hearing "NO!", at home, The parents?, probably spell it long enough use it, that goes for Grandparents also.

Children need to be taught the meaning of "NO", and have results for not reacting to "NO" applied! For me it was a switch from the Maple Tree in the front yard, I wasn't dumb, I never needed a second lesson for the same thing, I was like most kids and always found new things to test the boundaries.

I came back home from the service, a man of 22, first time I noticed the tree was dead and gone, it gave up it's Life, so I could grow up Strong and Tall. I wasn't a abused child, thanks to being correctly trained by my parents. Jim

Wow, a whole tree full of switches.
You were a BAD boy.

My story was much the same.(except for the military part - bad knee from pole vaulting)
My father's belt.
My mother's anything that was at hand.

I guess they were green before green was cool.
So was my butt after the swelling went down.
JPB

[Goofproof]

I think more than likely, Sleep Apnea isn't the problem. More than likely it's a hearing problem, the child isn't hearing "NO!", at home, The parents?, probably spell it long enough use it, that goes for Grandparents also.

Children need to be taught the meaning of "NO", and have results for not reacting to "NO" applied! For me it was a switch from the Maple Tree in the front yard, I wasn't dumb, I never needed a second lesson for the same thing, I was like most kids and always found new things to test the boundaries.

I came back home from the service, a man of 22, first time I noticed the tree was dead and gone, it gave up it's Life, so I could grow up Strong and Tall. I wasn't a abused child, thanks to being correctly trained by my parents. Jim

Wow, a whole tree full of switches.
You were a BAD boy.

My story was much the same.(except for the military part - bad knee from pole vaulting)
My father's belt.
My mother's anything that was at hand.

I guess they were green before green was cool.
So was my butt after the swelling went down.
JPB

Not a Bay boy, just a trying one. You have to keep pushing the limits, or you don't learn you boundaries. Jim

[Grace~~~]

I'm unsure if anyone outside of our local area is still interested in this story, but our BELOVED local reporter

Lauren Seabrook** WFTV station in Orlando

..did a great story this evening as an update / follow up and statistics of arrests of 5 and 6 year olds in The City Beautiful / Magic Kingdom Hood.

She also has a second long interview with the Grandmother that talks more about what doctors have told her about the child's sleeping disorder. Someone with better "CPAP ears" might pick up more about the apnea connection and find an interesting nugget to further the collective enlightenment?

I would have posted a link but I am having brain / computer issues.
...but if anyone watches Miss Lauren and thinks she's great and knows HOW to post her link that'd be cool.

*I* thought it was interesting, but that's because I live here most likely.




** of Mr. Walter and Sugar Baby/Daddy fame

[Midwest_non_sleeper]

1: Correct.

2: I prefer to say that "Not much" justifies that sort of action. Remember, it's a crazy world, and crazy things happen - crazy things that aren't always wrong.

3: Understatement is still a true statement.

4: Because even though "it's the right thing to do", the agency still has a cite a reason for the dismissal. I know in people's heads, they like to think that firing someone is as easy as 1, 2, 3, but in the real world, you have to have a good reason for it - even if it's a made up reason, because otherwise you may find a Union at your throat with the power of previous court decisions behind them (largely for public sector, private sector is much easier to let someone go). Yes, it was the right thing to do in this instance, clearly, but I'm guessing that in their official statement, it's going to say something about "...did not follow Departmental Policy..." in lieu of "...it was the right thing to do...".


jimbud writes: First I wish to say I believe you are a credit to your profession. On here you have presented yourself as a person i would have no problem with in any setting. You are "A Man".

I also think:

There is a mindset in Law Enforcement to "Circle the Wagons" when an incident such as this occurs.
It is in the air you breath every day. You are under a spotlight always. All the good you do is taken for granted.
When anyone considered to be "Law Enforcement" screws up it hits every news outlet in the land. Politicians try to use it to their advantage. And so on.

My point was and is the tendency to use words that down play these incidents. That's all.
It just struck me as too mild.

Anyway I do understand. I worked for many years for a Major Oil Company.
The only way they could get rid of "Deadwood" was to sell properties and have layoffs.

JPB

I am still trying to figure out how to format/compose on here.

Thanks for the kind words. I was in no way trying to get into, or elicit an argument. I think we're both on the same page, we just each got here via a different approach.

There is certainly a mindset in law enforcement to circle the wagons, as there is in almost every profession. Politicians are the epitome of it, but there is a point too far for everyone. When it comes to children, I'm typically very black and white on it. I do agree that the wording used was too mild, I was simply pointing out why it might be.

I'm going to get down to the brass tacks here. I'm a cop, full stop. I have the job of enforcing the law, regardless of who it is that's breaking it. I have a whole lot of discretion, but I'll be damned if I would let a fellow law enforcement officer off the hook for doing something absolutely stupid, especially when they should know better than anyone. I've been called a Blue Falcon before (military term, if someone hasn't heard it, look it up), but it was for the right reasons. I'm ok with that. The more that we let slip, the more the public loses faith that we are men and women with honor and devotion. I'm not here to be a hardass or screw up anyone's day, I'm here to at least try to keep 1) people as safe as I can, and 2) a civil society running smoothly. Neither of those require me to harass, annoy, cost people money, be a jerk, etc, but they do require me to at least stop criminal transgressions when I come across them.

Anyway, /soap box. Sorry, had to get that out.

Edit: The quoting here is messed up and I don't have time to follow Granny's lesson plan and fix it. Sorry!